Sankei Shimbun editorial board chairman Masato Inui responded to a protest from a senior official of Japan’s Ministry of Education concerning a textbook examiner. The ministry claimed that part of his article was “contrary to fact,” yet refused to disclose the other academic papers it said had been considered in the examiner’s appointment. Without seeing that evidence, on what basis can the original account be judged factually incorrect?

August 12, 2020
The following is from an article by Masato Inui, chairman of the Sankei Shimbun editorial board, published in the August 11, 2020 edition of the Sankei Shimbun under the title, “In Response to the Protest from the Education Ministry’s Director-General.”
Readers are truly something to be grateful for.
After I introduced in my July 28 column an article in Shukan Asahi Geino titled “‘North Korean Spy’ List Includes a ‘Ministry of Education Textbook Examiner,’” I received a tremendous response.
On August 6, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology also sent me a very courteous fax from Hiroshi Takimoto, Director-General of the Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau.
Since they took the trouble to send it, I would like to inform my readers of its contents as well.
・The column was published on the assumption that the contents of the weekly magazine article were factual, but an investigation was unable to confirm that the article was true.
・The description in “Reading the Wind” concerning the textbook examiner’s “specialized knowledge” was also contrary to fact.
It went on to say: “It is deeply regrettable that an article based on speculation relying upon such reporting was published in a manner that could give rise to doubts about the fairness of textbook screening, and we hereby lodge a strong protest.”
I appreciate the fact that the Ministry of Education promptly responded to my call asking, “Shouldn’t a person suspected of being a ‘North Korean spy’ be investigated?”
That remains true even if the investigation took only two or three days.
If the suspicions surrounding the examiner have been cleared, that is certainly welcome.
However, the ministry also says that what I wrote concerning the examiner’s “specialized knowledge” was “contrary to fact.”
That is a serious matter.
If that is so, I must apologize both to the person concerned and to my readers.
I presume that the passage in question concerns the appointment requirements for textbook examiners.
To become a textbook examiner, one must either have experience at the level of associate professor or above, or be a person recognized as possessing “a high degree of specialized academic knowledge and experience” in the relevant subject.
The examiner had no experience as an associate professor, and I wrote that if anything qualified as such “specialized academic knowledge,” it would appear to be a book praising Mao Zedong.
To thank the Director-General for pointing this out, I called him shortly before noon on August 6 and asked, “Which part is contrary to fact?”
His answer was, “I do not have the materials at hand.”
Late that night, I received a call saying, “It did not praise Mao. Other papers were also taken into consideration when the appointment was made.”
I then asked, “In that case, please show me those papers,” but the request was refused.
Under those circumstances, I cannot conclude that what I wrote was “contrary to fact.”
For the moment, this is my reply.